Employment

Where a plaintiff corporation has requested a preliminary injunction to prevent the defendant, a former senior vice president, from working for a competitor, the request should be granted based on two covenants entered into by the parties during the defendant’s employment with the plaintiff.

Where a 71-year-old employee filed a complaint charging that his employer discriminated against him on the basis of age by cutting his hours as a store employee and forcing his constructive discharge, the complaint must be dismissed given evidence that (1) the employer had valid, job-related reasons for reducing the complainant’s hours and (2) the conditions were not so intolerable that a reasonable person would have felt compelled to resign.

Where a respondent employer has been charged with handicap discrimination, the complaint must be dismissed because the respondent’s treatment of the complainant was not discriminatory on the basis of disability.

Where a plaintiff nursing assistant has sued the defendant hospital pursuant to Title VII alleging that she was subject to discrimination and a hostile work environment on the basis of her religious refusal to work on Sundays, the complaint must be dismissed as untimely.

Where an employee filed a complaint charging her employer with discrimination for terminating her employment after she informed the employer that she was pregnant, the employer has failed to show that it would have terminated her employment had she not been pregnant, and therefore the employer is liable to the employee because its actions were motivated primarily by unlawful discriminatory animus.

Where a complainant testified credibly that she was sexually harassment by the respondent who ran the restaurant where the complainant worked, the respondent and the corporate owner of the restaurant should be held liable for lost wages plus $50,000 in emotional distress damages.

Where a plaintiff laid-off employee claimed age discrimination, the defendant employer was correctly awarded summary judgment based on the insufficiency of evidence to support the plaintiff’s case. “… [Plaintiff John S.] Fridrich claims that he was more experienced and better ...

Where there was no meeting of the minds as to an oral agreement between Salem State College and the state employees’ union regarding the performance of maintenance and custodial work, the College did not violate state labor law when it allegedly repudiated the agreement.